«

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:23:29 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
: I really, really wanted to like this camera, but after two days of
: tolerating it, it's going back to B&H. For starters, the IQ is not much
: better than a Canon G12. Secondly, the controls are a nightmare. The
: movie start button is far to easily pushed so I needed to reprogram it
: to something else. The control wheel is VERY poorly implemented and when
: using it you will, 99% of the time, invoke a command you dont' want. It
: takes a very light a deft touch to use it as a wheel only (it doubles as
: a "clicker" at four positions, so when you depress the wheel to turn it,
: you usually click another function instead. It's absolutely maddening.
:
: The software they give you sucks, too.
:
: Onward and upward. The search for a decent compact camera continues.

If I were a betting man, I'd say you're doomed to failure. It's very hard for
me to see how someone who owns, and knows how to use, a 5D2 is going to find a
compact camera that will satisfy him.

Bob

On Jan 30, 8:25*am, Bowser <yeeec...@bleah.ugh> wrote:
> On 1/29/2011 10:18 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:23:29 -0500, Bowser<yeeec...@bleah.ugh> *wrote:
> > : I really, really wanted to like this camera, but after two days of
> > : tolerating it, it's going back to B&H. For starters, the IQ is not much
> > : better than a Canon G12. Secondly, the controls are a nightmare. The
> > : movie start button is far to easily pushed so I needed to reprogram it
> > : to something else. The control wheel is VERY poorly implemented and when
> > : using it you will, 99% of the time, invoke a command you dont' want. It
> > : takes a very light a deft touch to use it as a wheel only (it doubles as
> > : a "clicker" at four positions, so when you depress the wheel to turn it,
> > : you usually click another function instead. It's absolutely maddening..
> > :
> > : The software they give you sucks, too.
> > :
> > : Onward and upward. The search for a decent compact camera continues.
>
> > If I were a betting man, I'd say you're doomed to failure. It's very hard for
> > me to see how someone who owns, and knows how to use, a 5D2 is going to find a
> > compact camera that will satisfy him.
>
> Maybe, but I'll keep trying. Can't tell you what a disappointment the
> Oly was, though. I'm downloading a few raw files from a G12 today, and
> I'll take a long look at them before writing it off.
>
> In the meantime, I'll lug the 5D II.

I gave my G12 to my son for Christmas. It's much better than what he
had before, so he's happy.

I just wasn't using it, despite it being so much more "portable". I
remember thinking "that's a cool shot, I wish I had my 5D2" several
times. Still looking for something more portable with "knock your
socks off" quality. Unfortunately, Leica is not an option for me.

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
news: ...

In article
<2011013020133099097-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck
says...
> I have yet to see a compact which will do much better than
> I have
> experienced with the G11.

How about the Olympus XZ-1 with the F1.8 lens?

================================

That does look pretty good. Having a fast lens is a big
advantage for small sensor cams. I'd like to download a few
RAW files but I can't handle them, yet.

N <> wrote:
>On 31/01/2011, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>> Later this year my wife and I are doing a tour round the Baltic coast,
>> ranging from Berlin to St Petersburg and Narvik. Then we ar going to
>> spend two or three weeks touring on Swiss rail. I've been beating my
>> brains out trying to identify a more suitable camera than the D300.
>> Every time I think I've found one I say to myself "18mm is not as good
>> as 16mm", or "If I run into that I would very much regret not having
>> the f/2.8 70mm~200mm". My wife is going to make a loud noise about the
>> weight and bulk of the D300 (and I expect I will too, also) but I
>> think that's the camera I'm going to end up taking with me.
>>
>
>Why not pack a P7000 as well?


Better to pack a Canon G11 or G12, or a Panasonic Lumix LX5. I have
the Nikon P7000 and it's good, but still a little way behind the
others I listed for image quality. Surprising, given that they all
use the same Sony sensor.

The P7000 is also some way behind the Canon G cameras for speed of
operation.

Given my time over again, I would probably choose the G12 instead of
the P7000. Heck, I even have a Canon G9 which I prefer to the P7000
except at higher ISOs.

Bowser <> wrote:
>
>No question, the M9 is absurd


Absurd only to people who:

(a) cannot afford it, and
(b) have no understanding or experience of the supreme excellence of
Leica M lenses.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 07:48:30 -0500, "Bowser" <> wrote:

>That does look pretty good. Having a fast lens is a big
>advantage for small sensor cams. I'd like to download a few
>RAW files but I can't handle them, yet.

Does your workflow allow the use of DNG? If so just use the Adobe DNG
converter, no?

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2011-01-31 12:43:36 -0800, Bruce <> said:
>> Bowser <> wrote:
>>>
>>> No question, the M9 is absurd
>>
>>
>> Absurd only to people who:
>>
>> (a) cannot afford it, and
>> (b) have no understanding or experience of the supreme excellence of
>> Leica M lenses.
>
>I think for most of us non-pros the absurdity lies in the cost.
>As a retired amateur, with my resources, my upper limit for a body
>would be about $2000. With my current investment in a D300s with a mix
>of Nikkor and third party glass, some DX and some usable on a FF, my
>next upgrade is probably going to be a refurbished, or clearance D700.
>The G11 (& I also have a FujiFilm E-900) can continue meet my compact
>needs. If something mind-bogglingly superior comes along then I might
>revisit those needs.
>
>The value and the quality of the Leica M9 & lenses is undisputed. The
>damage buying one will inflict on my wallet is not. As much as I would
>like one I cannot justify the outlay.


Bowser clearly doesn't agree with you that "The value and the quality
of the Leica M9 & lenses is undisputed". You're right, of course. In
calling the M9 "absurd", he couldn't be more wrong.

In the last couple of months, I've had some fun assembling a
Nikon-based outfit on a small budget. Setting a budget, buying the
best gear you can within that budget, then getting the best out of
that gear is probably more satisfying than blowing $10,000+ on an
Leica M9 plus a set of Leica lenses. You do great things with your
D300, and long may you continue to get the best out of your outfit.

The Leica M9 is not remotely "absurd". It is a superlative camera,
and it's the only new camera body that can make use of the sheer
excellence of Leica M glass. If I felt I could justify an M9, I
wouldn't hesitate to buy one. I already have 15mm, 21mm, 24mm, 35mm,
50mm and 90mm M lenses and they are crying out for a digital body.

There will come a time when I buy an M9, or whatever succeeds it, but
the Nikon "D800" and "D400" are my priorities for 2011. Plus
replacing my car. I suppose I could buy an M9 and get to assignments
on a bicycle, or take the train, or hitch a ride ...

On Jan 31, 2:01*pm, Bowser <yeeec...@bleah.ugh> wrote:
> On 1/30/2011 10:37 PM, otter wrote:
>
>
>
> > I gave my G12 to my son for Christmas. *It's much better than what he
> > had before, so he's happy.
>
> > I just wasn't using it, despite it being so much more "portable". *I
> > remember thinking "that's a cool shot, I wish I had my 5D2" several
> > times. *Still looking for something more portable with "knock your
> > socks off" quality. *Unfortunately, Leica is not an option for me.
>
> No question, the M9 is absurd, and the little X1 is very nice, except
> when you're waiting for it to focus. Not an option. I was going to take
> a look at the G12, but based on your comment, I'll pass.
>
> It's not easy when you've been spoiled, is it?

I was actually thinking along the lines of the S2, but that is out of
the question, too.

Bowser <> wrote:
>
>It's just not worth the money.


Translated:

Bowser cannot afford a Leica M9, or his skills are nowhere near good
enough to exploit its amazing potential. Or, more likely, both.

Bowser <> wrote:

>On 1/31/2011 3:43 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> Bowser<> wrote:
>>>
>>> No question, the M9 is absurd
>>
>>
>> Absurd only to people who:
>>
>> (a) cannot afford it, and
>> (b) have no understanding or experience of the supreme excellence of
>> Leica M lenses.
>>
>
>Overpriced. Nothing more than that.


Translated:
Bowser cannot afford a Leica M9.


>And those nice lenses are wasted on a mediocre sensor.


Translated:
Bowser's skills are nowhere near good enough to exploit its amazing
potential.


>Nice jewelry, mediocre camera.


Translated:
Or, more likely, both.